"Speculation? Wow, are you triggered or what?

Lol. Predictable. You immediately resort to try to make things emotional. If you can't win in ideas you resort to trying to get things emotional.

"I gave you two scenario' s. These scenario' s are real live scenario' s. As a matter of fact, Q mentioned that deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut."

In what Q posts was it said word for word "Deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut." That was never said. You are taking out one phrase "No deals" and trying to wildly twist it to your own wild speculations and then claim those as facts.

Also you gave me two hypotheticals that you can't prove are facts, but you want to insist are the truth. Then you were like "See?! In my imagined scenarios that I can't prove I'm right."

Nope. Not even in your imagined scenarios are you right. But keep on imagining ~

"It is a logical response to the claim"

No, it's not. You need to check what logic is. A logical response to the question "2 + 2 =?" is "4", not "blue is my favorite color!" or "You're trIGgeReD by me."

Nothing logical about your need to use personal attacks when you can't make your case.

"Really? The process is exactly the same. In both cases a deal is proposed. A deal is commerce requiring both side to assess the advantage of the deal, to assess the value of the equity in question depending on the position of power they occupy in the, I almost would have said negotiation, but that would presuppose a negative state of being, so. ... I' ll maintain the idea of haggling to set terms to be agreed to."

Blackmail is not haggling. Black hats using blackmail and coercion is not them "haggling".

If you think White Hats are "haggling" then you already just proved the difference between the two. Well done.

"Your disagreement is duly noted, yet totally unfounded."

That's fine. I think your speculations are flawed. Let's agree to disagree.

"Speculation? Wow, are you triggered or what?

Lol. Predictable. You immediately resort to try to make things emotional. If you can't win in ideas you resort to trying to get things emotional.

"I gave you two scenario' s. These scenario' s are real live scenario' s. As a matter of fact, Q mentioned that deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut."

In what Q posts was it said word for word "Deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut." That was never said. You are taking out one phrase "No deals" and trying to wildly twist it to your own wild speculations and then claim those as facts.

Also you gave me two hypotheticals that you can't prove are facts, but you want to insist are the truth. Then you were like "See?! In my imagined scenarios that I can't prove I'm right."

Nope. Not even in your imagined scenarios are you right. But keep on imagining ~

"It is a logical response to the claim"

No, it's not. You need to check what logic is. A logical response to the question "2 + 2 =?" is "4", not "blue is my favorite color!" or "You're trIGgeReD by me."

Nothing logical about your need to use personal attacks when you can't make your case.

"Really? The process is exactly the same. In both cases a deal is proposed. A deal is commerce requiring both side to assess the advantage of the deal, to assess the value of the equity in question depending on the position of power they occupy in the, I almost would have said negotiation, but that would presuppose a negative state of being, so. ... I' ll maintain the idea of haggling to set terms to be agreed to."

Blackmail is not haggling. Black hats using blackmail and coercion is not them "haggling".

If you think White Hats are "haggling" then you already just proved the difference between the two. Well done.

"Your disagreement is duly noted, yet totally unfounded."

That's fine. I think your speculations are flawed, illogical and way off base. Yes, let's agree to disagree with your theory.